May 28, 2009
A “Young and Restless” Response to a Fundamentalist Rant, Part Three
In my original post concerning Pastor Dan Sweatt’s message on the “Young and Restless,” I highlighted four areas that I felt needed to be addressed. I dealt with the first one here, and now I want to address the second problem. This is how I originally worded it on May 13th.
2. There is the stunning non sequitur that the rise of Calvinistic thinking necessarily leads to a battle on the inerrancy of Scripture coupled with a laughable illustration of a question of interpretation on John 3:16 being a proof of disbelief in the inerrancy of Scripture. In addition to this outrageous claim, the illustration itself was a straw man representation of what is said to be the universally accepted way of dealing with the text by Calvinists.
As I have already done, I want to repeat that several important qualifications:
1. This was an FBFI Regional Meeting. It is part of a larger, national fellowship of Fundamentalist Baptists that seeks to be very influential with institutions and mission boards. This was their platform.
2. The topic of the conference was “Effective Leadership for the Next Generation” and the speaker was seeking to tell leaders what to do for the next generation.
3. I am not primarily defending Calvinsim. I have no difficulty with Dan Sweatt’s right to express his anti-Calvinist views, but I insist that he do it with truth and biblical ethic. It is bad pulpit ethic that has caused so many to leave fundamentalism; not necessarily the Calvinism of the popular leaders in contemporary evangelicalism.
4. I have not attacked Dan Sweatt’s character in any other area and have only questioned why he would deliberately hold on to things so easy to prove as non-facts. I stated — and meant it — that I am sure I would enjoy his company if I ever had the pleasure of meeting him. He has a good ministry that has grown under his leadership and I hope to emulate those kinds of things in my own ministry.
5. Finally, this is not personal. Dan’s Sweatt’s message is iconic. It is the kind of thing that fundamentalists have endured for decades, many times privately rebutting it over a meal after the “man of God” had uttered his diatribe. When I first commented on Sweatt’s message it had garnered less then 100 downloads even though it was a month old. Now it is over 1600 downloads on that one site alone. Since Dan has posted it on his website, he must be personally grateful to me for the advertisement! However, many are listening to it, writing me, and thanking me for saying what they wished they could have said years ago. Fundamentalist diatribes like this have been rarely publicly challenged to the point that maybe — maybe! — leaders would start realizing that they have to be accountable to the facts when they prepare their arguments.
Now for Part Three.
Dan Sweatt claimed that Calvinists do not believe that God loves the world and that they so misconstrue John 3:16 that they are going to lead us into the next big battle which will be over the doctrine of inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy, to be precise, is the teaching that the Bible contains no errors. It is a fundamental doctrine that is tightly interwoven with the doctrine of inspiration. Thus, Dan Sweatt’s charge is very serious.
Later we will actually examine Sweatt’s representation of the Calvinist interpretation of John 3:16 because I think that there is a germ of truth in his criticism. However, for the time being, we must examine the claim itself: Calvinism will lead to a battle of inerrancy. And this claim was buttressed by an illustration of how Calvinists supposedly interpret John 3:16.
I will try to show that the claim is a slippery slope argument and that the illustration is a straw man argument. Both arguments would be thrown out in a high school debate.
These are just a few of the numerous logical fallacies that were sprinkled through out Sweatt’s message. I will concede, however, that some forms of logical fallacies are done in ignorance or by over-zealous mis-statements and, once corrected, the offender is easily forgiven. I myself have been guilty of this and have publicly self-corrected once the error of my statement was shown to me. In some cases I too have probably been too stubborn or too muddle-headed to see my own bad argument. However, when a person uses logical fallacy to prove an accusation of brethren, he needs to be publicly corrected. If he is corrected, cannot honestly defend his statement, stubbornly refuses to acknowledge his plain error, he is choosing to persist in a sin against the Body of Christ. At this point one does not need to be a genius to understand what to do: “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Timothy 5:20). A pastor is not exempt because he is a “man of God,” or nice, or a board member, or a normally devote disciple of Jesus, or the pastor of a large church, or one’s son. In order that others might learn, his error needs to be pointed out whether he will hear it or not.
The Camel’s Nose Argument
The camel’s nose argument is the idea that says that if you let the camel get his nose into the tent pretty soon the whole camel will follow! It’s also known as a slippery slope argument. This is the reasoning that says that something will inevitably happen (Y) if an event takes place (X) and no connecting steps are provided that show how X will necessarily lead to Y.
I should clarify here that it is not an invalid argument to say that X will lead to Y as long as a demonstrable process is explained. Dan Sweatt said that Calvinism (X) will lead to a battle of inerrancy (Y) which in and of itself is okay if he can show steps from X to Y. Perhaps Dan Sweatt thought he was doing this with his illustration, but that was a straw man illustration that we’ll examine later. Thus, he presented only a camel’s nose/slippery slope argument.
For the present, let’s analyze the slippery slope argument that Calvinism will lead people to question the inerrancy of Scripture. This is very difficult to respond to because once Sweatt’s straw man is thrown out there is no rational connection between the two. Nevertheless, I have attempted to deal with it seriously.
If one is to assume that Sweatt’s accusation is true then one could be excused for thinking that Calvinists are weak on the doctrine of inerrancy and are certainly not defenders of it. Therefore, it would be good to examine past champions of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Note that I am emphasizing inerrancy. I am trying to be as precise as I can with Sweatt’s claim. I am not going to seek out champions of inspiration, but narrow my discussion to the more nuanced battle of inerrancy. This is important because there are some people, particularly people with liberal leanings, that will embrace inspiration, but reject the doctrine of inerrancy. If Sweatt is right, Calvinists are more inclined to the subtle liberal denial of Scripture in order to support their false teaching. This, of course, would make them non-fundamentalists and bolster Sweatt’s claim that Calvinism is the problem fundamentalists face today.
Naturally, as I expected, the search is not difficult when looking for people that believe in inspiration and inerrancy that also held to a Calvinistic soteriology. However, for the sake of argument, I have narrowed my illustrations down to men who were notable as defenders of inerrancy and became champions for this particular truth. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was such a champion, but there were others who are less known today that were well known in their day.
Exhibit A: Many of the authors of the articles on inspiration and inerrancy in the famous set of books called “The Fundamentals” were Calvinists. For example, Article VII in Vol. I, entitled, “Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity” is written by W. B. Griffith Thomas. Thomas was a strange bird; he was an Anglican, Dispensationalist, and — here’s the biggie — a Calvinist in soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Thus, we have a Calvinist who made his mark in fundamentalist history as a published champion for the doctrine of inerrancy.
Exhibit B: Another valiant defender of the inerrancy of Scripture during the onset of the higher criticism was the Baptist scholar, Basil Manly, Jr. This man was viewed by his contemporaries around the Christian world as a powerful champion for inerrancy. He died on the very same day that the other Calvinist champion for inerrancy died, C.H. Spurgeon, on January 31, 1892.
Exhibit C: W.B. Riley was an ardent proponent of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith which, though it is considered a “softened” Calvinism, is Calvinistic. Riley, a well-known fundamentalist champion, was Calvinistic in his doctrine of salvation and he valiantly fought for the inerrancy of Scripture. In one very tense and critical denominational meeting he stated the following:
Baptists believe the Bible to be an inspired Book, and hence inerrant! . . . We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without mixture of error, for its matter.
Clearly, Calvinism is not incompatible with inerrancy and, in fact, notable Calvinists were defenders of the Doctrine of Inerrancy. I would like to turn the tables on Dan Sweatt and ask him to produce a list of well-known defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture that were not Calvinists. It would be a much harder task than mine.
But, more precisely, Dan Sweatt said that Calvinism will lead to a battle of inerrancy. He does not give any historical precedence for this connection. He merely pontificates.
Since he has not shown where there is historical evidence that this is true and since it can be demonstrated quite easily that Calvinist have, in fact, championed the doctrine of inerrancy, we then must consider his illustration of how Calvinists use John 3:16.
This is the straw man that proves the first claim to be a manipulative slippery slope argument. We’ll consider that in the future.
Posted by Bob Bixby at May 28, 2009 12:13 PM | eMail this entry! | 1748 WordsThis entry was posted in the following categories: Fundamentalism
Bob,
Although I am a fundamentalist, in God’s sovereign plan and by his grace I did not grow up in Sweatt’s brand of fundamentalism (I’ve been a life-long GARBC’er, and of course no denomination/fellowship/assocation is perfect). This is the first time I have ever heard these kind of ridiculous statements against Calvinism (ain’t them internets amazin?).
Thank you for your efforts to expose and refute these views. It is good for fundamentalism.
Posted by: Greg Long at May 28, 2009 12:32 PMBob,
Slippery slope arguments aren’t “fallacious” they are just “weak”.
However, use of false information in an argument means that even a valid conclusion is not true. And, it appears that Pastor Sweatt has used false information regarding Calvinists.
I’m wondering,though, seriously, is it worth the time to carefully engange such a ridiculous argument. I’m not saying that the arguer should be treated cruelly or with disrespect. I’m just wondering how much time needs to be given to outrageously flawed arguments? I mean, whether one’s a Calvinist or not, isn’t it obvious that: (1) Calvinism has been around for over 400 years, and (2) in the last 80 years there have been Calvinists and non-Calvinists who have fought for inerrancy as well as (3) Calvinists and non-Calvinists who have abandoned inerrancy?
Keith
Posted by: Keith at May 28, 2009 01:22 PMI conceded that in one of the paragraphs, but said that the slippery slope argument had to be connected with a demonstrable process to be better than weak. Without it, I think it’s fallacious.
Why give it attention? Because I still live in the world where friends and relatives are hearing this kind of thing pontificated all the time. They need hear someone give a rebuttal. As painful as it is.
Posted by: bob at May 28, 2009 02:10 PMKeith, these arguments need to be dealt with in a systematic way and I am very thankful to Bob for pushing this conversation. It is long overdue.
Not because there is any danger with one man using these arguments in one service in the south. At this point, we have moved well beyond Pastor Sweatt, Bob has made it clear that Pastor Sweatt is not the focus. The issue is that these arguments have been proclaimed long and loud in our circles with little or no accountability. I and many of my peers have heard this type of reasoning hundreds of times throughout our lives. And it affected our lives in very real ways.
For some of us, these “outrageously flawed” arguments have been applied to every area of our fundamentalist faith and practice. Sometimes to the point where our faith has rested more strongly on flawed arguments, traditions and habits to a greater degree than what is actually in Scripture.
When I was 18, I could have written a 10 page paper on why the KJV was the only true translation for English speaking believers today, but if you asked me anything about the doctrines of election or progressive sanctification, I would have had no idea what you were talking about. There are generations of people still in fundamentalism who buy in to all of these arguments and the resultant theology is being born out by their lives.
Posted by: Coach C at May 28, 2009 02:33 PMBob,
I’m glad you are responding to Danny Sweatt’s misrepresentations. Many do not understand Calvinism at all, either historically or theologically. I wish Keith’s perspective was widely understood, but, alas, it is not. Misrepresentations, myths, and ignorance characterize many, if not most Fundametalists’ perceptions of Calvinism. Thank you for helping to set the record straight!
Cordially,
G. N. Barkman
Thanks Bob,
I really wasn’t trying to be critical. And, I wasn’t suggesting that you not give the matter attention. I was just wondering why give it this kind of attention — such serious analysis. What I mean is, does anyone who is persuadable really believe such nonsense is valid argumentation?
Again, I’m not attacking what you’re doing at all. Just wondering why not — instead of spending time demonstrating the obvious (very poor argumentation) — spend time laying out what Calvinists and Evangelicals actually believe?
Anyway, just a minor quibble of a question — not really worth discussing further.
What really does still need to be discussed is: Without such pontifications, what’s the point of fundamentalism? What does this thing “worth saving”, this “idea” that some of you are so attached to have that is not already fully present in the ministries and fellowships of men like Piper, MacArthur, Dever, Duncan, Carson, Keller, etc?
Posted by: Keith at May 28, 2009 02:36 PMKeith,
I took it as helpful criticism. No problem. And, the other commenters have reinforced my opinion that we need to wade through these things. I was just talking with my wife and she commented how I had worked through these things in my own mind for a long time before finally breaking free from the tyranny of pontificating preachers but there are hundreds of people that need to be given an example on how to listen to messages critically.
I tell my church people all the time to listen to me critically; not with a critical and judgmental spirit, but with an ear to learn and to make sure that I am presenting things accurately. I say that a preacher is much like a prosecutor hoping to get a particular verdict from the congregation. He has to present his case with good evidence, they look at God’s Word and seek the verification with the evidence he’s given, and if they can see it, they then obey his instruction. They are not called merely to obey “the man of God.” Teaching people to think takes patience, particularly when one was never taught to think by his pastors while growing up in the faith.
Posted by: bob at May 28, 2009 03:00 PMRe: “I am not primarily defending Calvinism …”
Not a criticism and I see your point (about misrepresenting … )
But the doctrines of grace are worthy of vigorous defense. (And you are a defender of them - THANK YOU!)
Some much, in my view, of Fundamentalists’ excesses result from a wrong view of man and a wrong view of God. I personally feel that “easy believism” and Finney-esque revivalism come from a wrong view of total depravity and the nature of the efficacious call. Additionally an incorrect view of sanctification permeates fundamentalism and this impacts evangelism, “revivals”, altar calls, the role of “standards”, etc.
The typical fundamentalist gospel presentation it is a far cry from Paul’s message on Mars Hill (Acts 17 - “he commands all people everywhere to repent”)
I’m really not all that sure that Calvinists will ever be truly welcomed in some segments of fundamentalism. I thank the Lord for Detroit Baptist, Central Seminary, and the GARBC where Calvinism is not a dirty word.
Posted by: Jim Peet at May 28, 2009 03:25 PMRE: “This was an FBFI Regional Meeting. … . This was their platform”
The FBFI needs to tighten up who is on the platform at regional meetings.
I don’t think Dan Sweatt’s comments represent the FBFI (because well-know Calvinists are in FBFI leadership roles).
Posted by: Jim Peet at May 28, 2009 03:39 PMKeith,
I know it’s hard to believe, but this stuff is not just present in much of Fundamentalism, it is actually the norm.
When I first arrived at BJU, I was bored to death by all the “dry theological preaching.” I wanted some action, not a bunch of exposition. Thank God that He taught me to love what is important. It has changed my life forever.
Posted by: Jason at May 28, 2009 09:28 PM“Why give it attention? Because I still live in the world where friends and relatives are hearing this kind of thing pontificated all the time. They need hear someone give a rebuttal. As painful as it is.”
I am one of the ones who was overexposed to this type of Fundamentalist preaching. Until I was exposed to ministries like Phil Johnsons’s and John MacArthur’s I was sadly under the impression that the majority of ministers where anti-intellectual pontificators. I praise God for what you are doing. Preach on Brother!
Posted by: Joel at May 30, 2009 12:02 AMWhen I listened to his message, I felt like he was confusing terms. I think when he said “inerrancy”, he really meant “perspicuity”. In other words, he was arguing that you can’t understand the Bible without the Calvinistic “magisterium” explaining the real meaning which to him is not apparent at all. Of course, his confusion of terms just made his argument more ludicrous. I think in addition to refuting what he said (“inerrancy”) it would be helpful to also refute what he meant (“perspicuity”). I think a lot of people feel like Calvinists don’t take Scripture at face value. But every time they’ve presented me with one of their proof-texts, a careful look at the context, grammar, authorial intent, and audience showed them that they were the ones forcing a meaning on a seemingly obvious text.
Posted by: Mark at May 31, 2009 10:22 PMBob,
It rained today, my day off, so I coudn’t do yard work, and I finally had the time to listen to Dan Sweatt’s sermon, “Young and Restless.” Now I know first hand what caused all the fuss. As I listened, I heard what to me represented both the good and the bad of Fundamentalistm as I experienced it growing up.
The good was in the warm hearted love for Christ and the souls of men, the commitment to Scripture, and the call to sacrifice for the cause of Christ. That’s what shaped me in my youth, and was used of God to direct me to preach God’s Word.
The bad was in the numerous contradictory statements, the misrepresntations of Calvinism, and the misrepresentations of history. I doubt that Pastor Sweatt even yet realizes his errors.
I was in school with Dan Sweatt. He graduated three years ahead of me, but I also personally heard all the old time Fundamentalists he refers to. They were certainly bigger than life personalities and all built large ministries. Each of them, like ourselves, had strengths and weaknesses, with some weaknesses more devistating than others.
If Calvinism as a movement died with John Calvin, as Pastor Sweatt states, why have there been literally scores of millions of Calvinists since then, and how can Calvinism be considered a threat to Fundamentalism today? This is but one example of the kind of confused and contradictory statements that make no sense at all. If Calvinists do not believe in and practice evangelism, as Pastor Sweatt states, how do you explain that nearly all the founders of the modern missions movement were Calvinists? Indeed, why hasn’t Calvinism shriveled away? Pastor Sweatt’s understanding of both theology and history is glaringly at odds with the facts.
How strange to hear Dan Sweatt exhorting young preachers to draw their seermons out of the Biblical text, when most of his own sermon contradicted the very thing he rightfuly advocted.
I’m afraid Pastor Sweatt unknowingly articulated the reason why many young (and not so young) Fundamentalists are discouraged with this movement, at least the segment Sweatt represents. Only those who are equally ignorant of theology and history could remain content with such a style of leadership. Those who do serious reading, either in school or on their own, will soon realize that the kind of Fundamentalism represented by Dan Sweatt is a deep pool of fervent, warm-hearted ignorance which does not inspire thoughtful followers.
My own guess is that although some may defect to Conservative Evangelicalism, many will remain Fundamentalists and will represent the better apects of historical Fundamentalism. I don’t think many Fundamentalists are drawn to Jonn Piper or others because they are engaging personalities, as much as they more carefully handle God’s Word and better understand church history. It is possible to benefit from men like this without becoming exactly what they are in every aspect of ministry.
G. N. Barkman
Posted by: G N Barkman at June 5, 2009 07:52 PMBob,
It rained today, my day off, so I coudn’t do yard work, and I finally had the time to listen to Dan Sweatt’s sermon, “Young and Restless.” Now I know first hand what caused all the fuss. As I listened, I heard what to me represented both the good and the bad of Fundamentalistm as I experienced it growing up.
The good was in the warm hearted love for Christ and the souls of men, the commitment to Scripture, and the call to sacrifice for the cause of Christ. That’s what shaped me in my youth, and was used of God to direct me to preach God’s Word.
The bad was in the numerous contradictory statements, the misrepresntations of Calvinism, and the misrepresentations of history. I doubt that Pastor Sweatt even yet realizes his errors.
I was in school with Dan Sweatt. He graduated three years ahead of me, but I also personally heard all the old time Fundamentalists he refers to. They were certainly bigger than life personalities and all built large ministries. Each of them, like ourselves, had strengths and weaknesses, with some weaknesses more devistating than others.
If Calvinism as a movement died with John Calvin, as Pastor Sweatt states, why have there been literally scores of millions of Calvinists since then, and how can Calvinism be considered a threat to Fundamentalism today? This is but one example of the kind of confused and contradictory statements that make no sense at all. If Calvinists do not believe in and practice evangelism, as Pastor Sweatt states, how do you explain that nearly all the founders of the modern missions movement were Calvinists? Indeed, why hasn’t Calvinism shriveled away? Pastor Sweatt’s understanding of both theology and history is glaringly at odds with the facts.
How strange to hear Dan Sweatt exhorting young preachers to draw their seermons out of the Biblical text, when most of his own sermon contradicted the very thing he rightfuly advocted.
I’m afraid Pastor Sweatt unknowingly articulated the reason why many young (and not so young) Fundamentalists are discouraged with this movement, at least the segment Sweatt represents. Only those who are equally ignorant of theology and history could remain content with such a style of leadership. Those who do serious reading, either in school or on their own, will soon realize that the kind of Fundamentalism represented by Dan Sweatt is a deep pool of fervent, warm-hearted ignorance which does not inspire thoughtful followers.
My own guess is that although some may defect to Conservative Evangelicalism, many will remain Fundamentalists and will represent the better apects of historical Fundamentalism. I don’t think many Fundamentalists are drawn to Jonn Piper or others because they are engaging personalities, as much as they more carefully handle God’s Word and better understand church history. It is possible to benefit from men like this without becoming exactly what they are in every aspect of ministry.
G. N. Barkman
Posted by: G N Barkman at June 5, 2009 07:52 PMamen
Posted by: jon at June 11, 2009 08:29 AMamen
Posted by: jon at June 11, 2009 08:29 AMThe old brand of fundamentalism in the Independent Baptist circles needs to die.
The idea that they, 1)are never wrong, 2)can’t be questioned, 3)cover up scandal’s, 4)create cloned little mechanical robots, 5)are at times very unloving, 6) are legalistic.
Yet they think if you agree with them you are going to heaven - even if you live a life of continual and unrepentant sin.
Salvation is miracle not a system!
Yes, “Anon”, salvation is a miracle, not a system, but I don’t think you are accurately portraying Fundamentalism as I experienced it growing up in Independent Baptist Churches. I never knew anyone who believed people can go to Heaven following a life of continual and unrepentant sin. And I’m certain that Dan Sweatt would not agree with that either. I’m confident in asserting that if you experienced something of that nature, that was not the norm.
As to your other statements, there is some truth in them, but not without many manifestations of genuine love and concern as well. Frankly, no religious system achieves perfect performance of it’s ideals. You will find good and poor examples of Biblical Christianity in every conservative fellowship, including Fundamentalism. Please, “Anon,” guard your heart against bitterness and rancor. It serves no good, and will become an anchor upon your own spiritual health.
Cordially,
G. N. Barkman
G. N. Barkman
I’m talking about the old school attitude of Independant Baptist Fundamentalism. I am not bitter - just very troubled about it. I have seen what it can do. This brand is not spiritual, it’s less than that - and it does not bring life.
I see hope when I see views like Bauder’s coming out. I am hoping there is a change in the movement - soon!
Anon
Posted by: Anon at June 11, 2009 05:02 PMG. N. - One thing I forgot. Many Independents do think you can be saved while continuing in sin. As long as they think you were saved at some time.
Once saved - always saved you know. Christ paid for future sins too! They have a wrong view of eternal security.
We must remain true to Christ, or we are not saved. If we fall, we must repent and be restored.
They went out from us because they were not of us.
Posted by: Anon at June 11, 2009 05:09 PMAnon,
While no doubt true in some cases, that is not typical of the Independent Baptists I grew up with. Example: A pastor of an Independent Baptist Church lands in jail. (True story. Too long to give details.) I was “week-end” Youth Pastor. I had to counsel many of “my” teens because…they reasoned that since Pastor So and So was obviously not truly saved, and they had professed Christ under his ministry, they must not be truly saved either. Not exactly solid theology, but the assumptions do not support the “living in sin and still going to Heaven” theology you mentioned.
Never-the-less, many of the problems you cite are genuine weaknesses, and it’s good to talk about them. That encourages us to think more Biblically to arrive at a better understanding.
Cordially,
G. N. Barkman
“Why give it attention? Because I still live in the world where friends and relatives are hearing this kind of thing pontificated all the time. They need hear someone give a rebuttal. As painful as it is.”
Yes! Pastor Bixby, thank you so much for your thoughtful responses here, grounded in Truth, not opinion. Thank you for demonstrating the very attitude Fundamentalism is (too often, correctly)said to lack. It is necessary and appreciated, and it is flat-out refreshing to someone following along in the discussion.
Posted by: One of the young, restless & reformed at June 15, 2009 11:59 AM
